Re-post
First of all, let me say I think Mike Mularkey is a very talented offensive co-ordinator (based on his Pittsburgh years) and I am hoping he does a great job for us this year. I loved Scott Linehan, though, so when I compare then a few things concern me. I'll be watching the games to see if Mike can make me forget all about Scotty, but in the meantime, here's what nags at me.
I hope Mularkey doesn't pull back too far into conservativism. Linehan was a very, very aggressive play-caller, and drew up play that exploited defensive formations' weaknesses very well. A Linehan play would either be a spectacular success or failure, but it would at least be spectacular in its intent. When they worked, the plays found WIDE open people or huge running holes thanks to his strategy.
I don't know a lot about Mularkey from watching him. I have heard good things about him from his Pittsburgh days. Perhaps his hesitancy to go deep with the Bills was due to having below average QB at the time (Losman still needs experience) and not a lack of desire for aggressive play calling. Still, I cannot see many coaches in the NFL (except Martz), including Mularkey, ever matching Linehan's ultra-aggressive style. Even Saban said, after Saturday's game, that he needed to address having more "explosive plays" called by the coaches. That tells me Mike was not quite as aggressive as Saban would have liked. Hopefully that changes now.
For those who say "BUT IT'S THE SAME SYSTEM ANd PLAYBOOK!" I say, look, if you and I have the same playbook it STILL doesn't mean you and I will pick the same plays out of it, in the same order, at the same time. Two musicians might use the same instrument, but their individual rhythm, cadencing and style make their music different. The same is true of offensive co-ordinators. The plays may have the same names, but where Linehan might have gone for the throat in a certain situation, Mularkey might opt for a more conservative call. Calling a game is about personal tendencies AND the system.
People are also enamoured of the fact the Mike calls gadget plays as evidence of how daring and aggressive he can be, but what is FAR more important than 2 gadgets plays in an entire game are the other 60-70 plays that he calls. Those are what I hope to see Mike being aggressive with.
My second concern with Mularkey came from a comment Randy McMichael made in last week's press conference. He said Mike's approach was very simple and depended mainly on each individual out playing the guy against him. To me, that system works best if you know that your whole team is FAR more talented and physically gifted than the opposition's players. That means you'll win all those one on one battles and get your positive yards. While we are strong at some spots (QB, #1 WR, RB), we do not DOMINATE at areas like O-line. I fear that where Linehan would have out-thought the opposing defense and had them caught in the wrong coverage so we could make an easy completion, Mike will depend on the "fact" that every player will win his battle at each position on every play in order for the play to work. That sounds like what Harrington had complained about in Detroit... "go out there, and each individual should 'make something happen". Granted, at least Mike has a PLAN, unlike the coaches in Detroit.
Overall, I don't know enough about Mularkey to judge him yet, so I'll wait, hope and ultimately see how our offense looks.
B.
